what. the. truck.

0

What do people in this country not get about “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?

I found this article (apparently I misread the title) thinking it might show some new light on some arguments against gun-control.  Wait, first let me say I HATE the term “gun-control”.  Period.  It’s not gun “control” its gun LIMITATIONS.  SO, let’s just call it what it is, ya? Ya.

I’m going to copy and paste and pick this trash apart.  The pieces in the sub-set are from the article. Click the link to take you to the article on salon.com

12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

AlterNet In a recent discussion about gun control on Thom Hartmann’s program, my opponent suggested that gun control advocates like me really have a cultural aversion to guns. That’s a standard ploy for the gun set: when reason isn’t on your side, deploy emotional and personal arguments instead.

“Anti-gun”? I could’ve brought up my own recreational gun use, or even brought out the firing range pass I carry in my wallet. But I’ll admit that I’ve lost a little of my taste for it as our national killing spree continues unabated. What’s more, that would’ve been disrespectful to the millions of Americans who do have an understandable aversion to guns. Personal habits should have no part in a rational policy discussion.

Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals, the crazy’s being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We’re going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you’re confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.

1. I’m not anti-gun, I’m pro-kindergartner.

After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it’s irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?

What the stuff? I have never heard this argument, but my argument would be to arm the staff.  Wait, hasn’t some school district in Ohio already do this?  Sounds good to me!

2. Saying “If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns” is like saying “If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk.”

Rush Limbaugh’s recent variation on the old “only outlaws will have guns” line went like this: “If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns.”

This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver’s license if we’re arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren’t any different.

Um… I’m pretty sure people who have no regard for society or themselves do drive drunk.  If driving drunk is illegal, and if “out law” means people who live outside the law, I’m pretty sure that only “outlaws” drive drunk by definition.

3. If dead children are a “distraction,” what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?

As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a “distraction” from more important matters.

Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren’t important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?

I don’t think I’ve heard any Pro-2nd Amendment-er (yeah, I just made that up, you are welcome to take it ;)) has put that statement so bluntly or harshly.  Maybe that is because us in the “right wing” DO value human and children’s lives.  The overall point is, though, that all the media attention on “gun-limitation” IS a media circus that is diverting our emotional attention to trying to prevent and eradicate something that isn’t a pandemic in the first place.  Did I say that all ok?  Here it is, the “gun crisis” we are experiencing is nothing more than a bloated media cluster FUCK (yeah I just dropped the “F” bomb… even us good girls get pushed over the edge) that is distracting the American public from the underlying problem  Gun “control” legislation that is in place NOW obviously isn’t being enforced.  What should be done? Stricter penalties on those who DO violate current laws, and make it illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TRAFFIC GUNS TO KNOWN DRUG CARTELS!  HOW ‘BOUT THAT??

4. So you’ve got “Second Amendment” rights? Where’s the rest of your militia?

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting?

Don’t get me started on WHO THE MILITIA REALLY IS! Here‘s my post dissecting the 2nd Amendment with sources to Supreme Court rulings.  If you are lazy (like me) I’ll fill you in (Skip the next few sentences if you have already read the post).  Legally speaking, there are 2 forms of militia: organized and unorganized.  The ORGANIZED MILITIA is the state level of  the National Guard, and the UNORGANIZED MILITIA is every able-bodied male from 17-45 (64 if you are a former service member) and females in the National Guard.  Why is it that any idiot with a mouth, a laptop, and a mediocre ability to use both wants to voice their opinion about gun-limitations?  Why don’t they close the first and use the latter to research our founding fathers and READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS to be more educated??  It’s not that hard, I promise.  In fact, send ME your questions and since I obviously have nothing else to do (I’m a stay at home mom who home schools, cleans, cooks and takes care of 3 kids, 3 dogs and 2 chickens, CLEARLY I am bored).  I would love to address anybody’s questions and post my answers.  All liberals are encouraged to ask questions.  Please.  (after thought: I’m so glad that the only part of the 2nd Amendment you focused on was the word “militia” ::rolls eyes:: and you have no thoughts on “shall not be infringed” or “necessary to the security of a free state”  ::sigh::

5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so “well-regulated.”

Along with Crazy New York Hermit Dude, the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your “militia.”

Please refer to above.  Congratulations on YOUR ability to diagnose and properly treat these people who have obviously mental problems. All your prescriptions from Big Pharma are obviously working.

6. If I can’t drive without decent vision, I shouldn’t be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death with a hammer.

Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.

In fact, you shouldn’t buy a hammer either, let alone breathe.  Let’s bring back the death penalty and this person wouldn’t be alive to do harm again.  :0)

7. “Freedom to own a gun”? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don’t have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds — armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls — manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.

And I’m okay with that.

If our laws had permitted that, I’m pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms — while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.

Speaking of… I actually would very much like to own these.  All of them.  And yes I just “googled” all of those.

8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …

… and Yemen’s having second thoughts.

From the UN’s Small Arms Survey: “Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen’s basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen.”

There’s a slogan for you: “More extreme than Yemen.”

I really hate the U.N. Can someone please tell me why their surveys are in our country?  I’m pretty sure that our involvement in the U.N. is unconstitutional anyway.  Perhaps if Yemen had a structure and constitution like ours, things would be different. The top 5 most dangerous countries are as follows: 1. South Africa, 2. Brazil, 3. Columbia, 4. Russia, and 5. Somalia.  I’ll stick to the U.S. of A.

9. Why is it that the people who think our “freedom to own guns” is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms — of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy — in the name of national security?

We have the data which shows that our supposed “gun freedom” is causing thousands of needless deaths each year. Most “gun rights” advocates don’t care — and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it’s unnecessary and even wasteful.

Unconstitutional surveillance? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check. Constitutional and rational gun control?

Never.

I am personally not willing to sacrifice any “security” for “safety.  I’m not willing to bend on any of my fundamental rights, actually, and am against surveillance, any suppression of information outlets or demonstrator’s rights, the NDAA and the Patriot Act.  BTW my right to guns IS inflexible.  Hence the “shall not be infringed” part of it.

10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.

We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain’s, for example.

Are we safe enough yet?

Great Britain also has pretty strict gun control laws.  That’s the most ridiculous comparison. Just sayin.

11. “Recreational gun use”?

Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?

And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?

You know, I don’t see the point, really in passing a ball back and forth, or swimming laps in a pool either, but I’m not trying to say that NOBODY can do these sports just because I don’t see the point.  Speaking of sport, anyone know when or if  Top Shot will be on again?  I LOVE that show.

12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?

That would allow you, for the first time, to use the Second Amendment for its true and stated purpose: to protect the security of a state.

All the other gun extremists could join you there. Wouldn’t that be great?

Most of us are getting tired of reading the obituaries of public servants, moviegoers, shoppers, schoolchildren, and other innocent bystanders in our local papers. Now we can be safe, you can be happy — and Wall Street investors can keep profiting from guns and the misery they cause.

Why the hell are we labeled as “extremists”??  Can someone please answer that?  I’m not bombing buildings or setting myself on fire or convincing people to do suicide missions to get my point across.  I just don’t want to give up my right to guns! And I’m sure the most of us so-labeled “extremists” would LOVE to star our own state (cough cough TEXAS cough couch MISSOURI) BUT then your big huge overbearing government would have us all in once location to bomb the hell out of us with their damned drones!

The state of “Guntopia” isn’t a perfect idea. We would worry about your children’s safety — but then, we already do.

HA HA HA HA!!!  Yes, you worry about my children’s safety.  I bet you would squirm if you knew I don’t vaccinate, take any medications, refuse anti-biotics and take pro-biotics instead, make my own toothpaste and laundry soap, eat organic/non-GMO (the best i can), co-sleep with my babies and breastfeed beyond 6 months (I VEHEMENTLY DISLIKE formula and the companies who  make it), baby wear and attachment parent too.  I know you worry about my children’s safety, I see what your Child Protective Services do to people with children here and in Great Britain.  But, that is talk for another day.

What would YOU say to each of these arguments?  Do some arguments ruffle your feathers a little more than others?  Let me know what you think!

 

I apologize for any errors in spelling and grammar, but I’m tired and not going to proof read.  Thank you for NOT commenting on my errors in advance 😉

Advertisements

An Analysis of the Second Amendment

17

Since my apparent opposition to gun control is not shared by all of my peers (and that is acceptable and welcomed) and there seems to be some disagreement among us what the 2nd Amendment means, I would like to do my best to explain my understanding of it, while also backing up what I have to say with facts and legal findings.  I will pull from the well known online, peer edited encyclopedia known as Wikipedia, as well as from the Supreme Court’s own case index of rulings.  I welcome debate, but not name-calling, sarcasm or hot-headed responses.  As long as you don’t spam me, I will approve all comments, even those I disagree with.  This is going to be long and lengthy.  If you have patience, I will bring all of my points together.  The purpose of this post is to put all of my thoughts in a basket, so to speak, with the intention of making sense and arguing against every point people make for “gun-control”.

Let’s start with what the Second Amendment in the Constitution says.  This in itself has discrepancies since there are 2 versions of the 2nd Amendment each with punctuation and capitalization differences:

One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them. I’ve boldfaced the differences.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (wikipedia)

I feel some definitions are needed here:

MILITIA:   

1. There are 2 types of Militia:  Organized militia (the National Guard of the State, Territory, and District of Columbia) and Unorganized as defined by the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 (also known as the Dick Act of 1902).   The unorganized militia, also defined by the Dick Act of 1902, presently consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia (anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.  The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”[39] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. (“Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must – (1) be a citizen of the United States; and(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.”

These persons remain members of the militia until age 64. Paragraph (b) further states, “The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the NavalMilitia.” (wikipedia)

2. the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:

  • Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
  • The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
  • A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
  • An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces

In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the “enemies” against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.

Central to the complete concept of “militia” as used by the Founders was that it be “well-regulated”, which meant well-trained and well-organized, but not necessarily by government. Thus, the term would not have been properly used to refer to an armed, unruly mob, but only to persons who behave in a responsible, law-enforcing mode, and who might act to control an armed, unruly mob as an “insurrection”.  (wikia)

INFRINGE:

WEBSTERS ONLINE DICTIONARY:

1. to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2. obsolete:defeat, frustrate

So if we analyze the 2nd Amendment, and substitute the words for the definitions, this is what we get:

A well-trained and well-organized (but not necessarily by government) body of able-bodied men and women between the ages of 17-45 (65 if a former member of the military), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be encroached upon.

So this seems to clarify a bit, but also appears to be more restricting.  What about men and women who are not former members of the military who are 46 and older?  Do they not also have the right to bear arms?  I will get more into that later when we discuss District of Columbia v. Heller.  Let’s look a little into colonial times, and their frame of mind.

INFLUENCE OF THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1689:
The necessity of securing a “free” state was of such importance it was placed in the 2nd Amendment.  Right after the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press,freedom to peaceably assemble and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[9] The English Bill of Rights emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant.
Our forefathers knew what it was like to live under a tyrannical king and government.  A government that was too involved with their lives.
One of the issues the Bill (English Bill of Rights) resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.
Our forefathers saw their king (prior to the English Bill of Rights) desperately try to disarm them and replace them with a permanent army.  The kings argument then was ‘why should our citizens be armed when we have a standing army?’  (Sound familiar? This is an argument I get over and over again!)
The bill states that it is acting to restore “ancient rights” trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.
The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an EXISTING RIGHT and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.  We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.  The very text of the Second Amendmentimplicitly recognises the pre-existance of the right ad declares that is “shall not be infringed.”  As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876), ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for it’s existence.  The Second Amendment declares that is shall not be infringed…”. (wikipedia)
Early American Settlers viewed the right to arms and militias as extremely important for not only self defense of themselves and their families and communities, but also for deterring tyrannical government!
“Col. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr (1995) “Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment“. 62 TENN. L. RE. 643. “The concept postulates that the Second Amendment was inteded to provide the means by which the people, as a last resort, could rise in armed revolt against tyrranical authorities.”
“Malcom, “That Every Man Be Armed,” pp 452, 466.  “The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three diestinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing armyThe framers’ attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And just in case we were unsure of the mind frame of the day, here is a glimpse of the Pennsylvania state Constitution of 1776 (the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1787):
the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say anything about hunting or target practice.
So now we see the definitions of a few key words in the Second Amendment.  We see the mind frame of the colonial times.  They were very mistrusting of an overly powerful central government.  This is why Madison set up a strong republican government with three branches that divided it’s powers.  This is why the government is of the people, for the people, by the people.
Let’s see what the Supreme Court has had to say about the Second Amendment in the most recent ruling on the Second Amendment:
D.C. v. Heller: Justice Anonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. …the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”  Scalia wrote that the opinion wasn’t in conflict with bans on ownership for convicted felons or mentally ill.  It also ruled that the two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.  Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the majority opinion, considered the amendments prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment.”
“What the Heller Court describes as the general preexisting right to keep and bear arms for participation in militias, for self-defense, and for hunting is thus not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur, just as other AMendments apply generally to protect other individual freedoms.”
” The right of the whole people, old and young, men women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree…”   Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)
Overall, as found in Supreme Court rulings from 1846 through present day, it has been found the the right to bear arms is not limited to only military and militia, but to the average law-abiding citizen who cares to not only hunt but also defend himself.  The grammer and punctuation in the Second Amendment is irrelevant in comparison to the meaning and history behind it.  When other Amendments say if they are applied to the home specifically, this one does not.  When other portions of the Constitution specifically spell out limited powers, this one does not.  The Second Amend ment does, however, say that well regulated (well trained and organized) militia is imperitive to the security of a free state, and our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE ENCROACHED UPON!! Perhaps the REAL Gun Control answer is not limiting our guns and ammunition, but to educate and train.  Perhaps instead of taking away from citizens who abide by the law, we should put more guns into those citizens’ hands.  I feel safer in my home knowing that we have firearms, and we know how to use them properly.
gun control is hitting your target

gun control is hitting your target

I’m not sure if this is as scattered as it seems.  I really just wanted to pool together different pieces that I have read.  If you have any questions or corrections, please politely inform me so I can correct any mistakes.
I’d also like to thank whoever created this image.  If you know who did, please link to them in the comments so I can give credit where credit is due.
Thank you,
The very patriotic Domestic Zombie
**side note here‘s a link to an excellent paper regarding gun control and it’s not so modern ideas**